BIR BAHADUR RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant suffered conviction under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on being tried by Special Judge, Sitamarhi in G.R. No. 516 of 1989 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months.

(2.) THE factual matrix are that Sri Ram Autar Mishra (RW. 1) on receipt of confidential information about sale of 4 quintals levy sugar and 414 litres kerosene oil in black market in Nepal by the appellant who happened to be fair price shop dealer under Public Distribution System, led a trap in his business premises in company of other officials. It was alleged that barring 30 litres of kerosene oil, there was no stock of essential commodities in the shop. The appellant allegedly on his own volition, rendered a confessional statement acknowledging his guilt, pursuant to which a police case on such accusations was registered and investigation commenced, on conclusion of which the police laid chargesheet before the court. In the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined altogether seven witnesses including Reporting Officer, Block Marketing Officer, Karamchari and also seizure list witnesses.

(3.) TWO fold contentions were raised by Mr. Dileep Kumar Jha for the appellant who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae and before I give them due consideration, I consider it proper to discuss first, the evidences placed on the record. Ramawatar Mishra RW. 1 who happened to be the Reporting Officer, while reiterating his earliest version states about inspection of business premises of the appellant on 23rd June, 1989 in the company of other officials, when against supply of 4 quintals of levy sugar and 414 litres of kerosene oil, there had been no stock in the business premises, as the same were allegedly sold in the jurisdiction of Nepal territory by the appellant. The witne$s would state that the appellant even on demand, at the time of inspection, did not produce sale register, stock register, cash memo etc. and even though a display board was found on the business premises, stock and price were not mentioned therein. The narrations almost in similar vain and terms were made by Shri M.K. Verma who happened to be the Anchal Adhikari about there being no stock of essential commodities in the business premises and also non -production of documents by the appellant. Jafarul Hassan Khan P.W. 3 made narration in similar terms about there being no stock of essential commodities in the business premises of the appellant during inspection, also states about confessional statement of the appellant before inspecting authorities. Ram Prakash Sah RW. 4 though admits his signature on the confessional statement rendered by the appellant, turned volte face about confessional statement rendered by the appellant before him, and states that his signature was obtained on coercion by the inspecting authority. Anand Roy RW. 5 would state about inspection of the business premises of the appellant on 23rd June, 1989 and would also state about seizure of stock register, sale register, display board on which he stated to have appended his signature. Sri RN. Roy RW. 6 though states about inspection of business premises of the appellant, frustrates the State, about allegation of disposal of essential commodities by the appellant in black market, and the last witness was Sri N.R Singh P.W. 7 who was the Investigating Officer. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State.